Given Buderus' record, I suspect it was simply a bit of a stuff up on his behalf. He's not exactly renowned for illegal tackles.

RFL for once have been consistant.
Senior got nothing for kicking out so has Joel!
Coley got a game ban for a dangerous throw so as Buderus!

Nice to see Phil Clarke's dad was on the disciplinary panel.

And half of your board in the RFL

I think he got the ban not just for the tackle its self but the way he landed on the tackled players head. I dont think he intended to tackle like that but they may think he could have done a little more to avoid landing on the other players head

Seems that two of our ex-coaches were on the panel.




We own the RFL.

More important is who will be on the escape/appeals panel.

Brian McLennan, Harry Jepson, Gary Hetherington and Francis Cummins with any luck

Just checked the rota on the RFL website, but they haven't listed any names for panels beyond 02/09/2010.

When is the appeal heard?

Tonight

Surprise surprise he's appealing it.

If he gets off it would be incredibly wrong as for the first time I can remember he could be banned against the team he committed the offence against. Providing Saints pick the winner of wire's game and we can get past KR.

You honestly think the tackle warranted a suspension? There was no malice in it, he has no previous record and showed immediate remorse. Throw in what Tomkins got away with and the suspension is very, very harsh.

coley !!!

He should appeal and it should be over turned.

It was no worse that our attemted spear. Carless but not malicious

Every bit as bad as Coley's IMO.

Actually I don't think it was harsh. Take a look again and you'll see Buderus has his arms between Prescot's legs when he tips him up. He then DRIVES him into the ground with no attempt to pull out of the action. Malice or not, intention to injure or not, this is a VERY dangerous and illegal tackle. As the commentary team point out, it was lucky that Prescott survived serious injury. I can't see any grounds for an appeal to be honest unless we only issue bans on intent alone. That's never been the case as long as I've been watching the game.

he should of kicked him on the way down then he would not of been banned.rfl just trying to get a saints wigan final.they are now stating that its ok to kick and punch and you wont be banned

he would have only needed to if Prescot elbowed him in the tackle...

2 players in the eastwood spear tackle so why did coley get a caution? buderus not that type of player if its not overturned then its clear that they want leeds out of the final

No-one's arguing he's that type of player...he clearly isn't! But bans aren't onl issued for intent or whether someone "is that type of player or not"! It was clearly a dangerous and illegal tackle that could quite easily have resulted in serious injury. The 1 match ban is a fair reflection of that. Had there been intent then it would have been worthy of a much longer longer one!

As for the supposed spear tackle on Eastwood; firstly it wasn't a spear tackle but merely lifting the legs over hoizontal and, as such, the penalty was the right decision and secondly, Coley didn't get a warning as he wasn't even involved in the tackle! You really do need to take a look at the incidents you're posting about before going off on a rant as you just end up looking like an idiot otherwise! Unless that's your intention, of course...

he had to do a somersault to land on his back. haven't viewed it back yet but thought it was coley, i can't understand how tomkins cannot get punished, prescott was not hurt in the tackle by buderus neither was mcguire from the kick but if ther banning buderus for that then surely tomkins should of got more than a slap on the wrist.make the leeds team as weak as possible is what the rfl will be doing. it will be leeds v wigan in the semi im sure of that which is why i think he is banned, like webb for example got 2 game ban to miss the challenge cup game against you. its clear to see they want you in the final

Who can blame them?

Mate, you're completely missing the point! It's not decided by whether someone was injured or not! Neither is it decided soley on intent (although this can be a factor, certainly in terms of length of ban). The fact is Buderus puts his hands between Prescott's legs and drives him into the ground. That is the definition of a spear tackle (for which bans are handed out). In Eastwood's case McIllorum lifts his legs above the horizontal, but at no time is his head/neck driven towards the ground. Therefore it ISN'T a spear tackle but a different offence of 'lifting the legs above the horizontal' for which the correct decision is a penalty. This was given. The kick, although stupid and, in my opinion if not the referee's worthy of a sin-binning, was never going to result in a ban unless you argue that the force is irrelevant. If you're going to take this line then I suggest you go and check the Webb kick out at Sam Tomkins. You can't have it both ways!

Stop with the conspiracy theories. Leeds can have no complaints about the RFL and, in particular its disciplinary as Leeds seem to come off better than most! It wouldn't surprise me in the least if in this instance the ban is lifted and Leeds get the better of this decision. It won't alter the fact that this WAS a spear tackle and worthy of the 1 match it brought.

it was a deliberate kick mate not accidental which should result in a ban if hes banning petty things